W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: FtF Meeting

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:54:18 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1003030754g3c3f5823mbb471d88d3f013c7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-font@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 4:40:28 PM, Tab wrote:
> TAJ> I'm not sure from reading the charter, but is CWT still allowed to be
> TAJ> developed as a deliverable under the "WebFonts" line?
>
> Its no longer a deliverable of the proposed Working Group.
>
> The conformance requirement will be that WOFF must be supported and other formats may be supported. So implementations which plan to support it can of course do so. Just like they may already support other formats (EOT, CFF, raw TT/OT, SVG).

Well, my question was whether or not it's allowed for the *FontWG* to
work on it, not for browsers to implement it.  The charter explicitly
says that we shouldn't be working on any new formats other than WOFF.
Is CWT new enough to be restricted by this, or is the fact that it's
just a reinterpretation of an existing format enough to let it slide?

> Are you aware of implementations which plan to add CWT support?

Except for IE which will support it by default with no further effort
(interpreting it as EOT), not as of yet.  Unfortunately.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 15:55:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:05 GMT